It can, if the evidence shows that her knowledge of the employer's software and methods is special or advanced rather than general controls skill. Years alone do not establish specialized knowledge, and the employer need not prove that qualified U.S. workers are unavailable.
Proprietary knowledge, not seniority, is the test
Hypothetical example: The statutory definition points at knowledge of the petitioning company's own product, process or procedures. Ines's four years matter only as evidence of how deep her knowledge of the proprietary software goes. The petition should describe the software's architecture, its tuning methodology, the customer implementations she has led and any internal documentation she wrote, and then explain what it would take to teach a newly hired U.S. controls engineer the same things. If the honest answer is a two-week course, the case is weak. If it is a year of supervised commissioning plus access to source code and vendor-specific configuration history, the case is strong. Avoid describing her as the best person for the job; that is a hiring argument, not an eligibility argument. Also avoid claiming her general PLC and instrumentation expertise as specialized, because that invites an officer to conclude the whole petition is inflated.
Hypothetical example: A greenhouse-automation company plans a transfer of the employee who calibrates its proprietary climate-control algorithms. An initial technical audit should identify the internal data, tools, and judgment calls that distinguish that knowledge from ordinary sensor maintenance. Training records and controlled manuals settle how she acquired it; a manager’s statement alone does not. If a new hire could learn the asserted knowledge from public manuals in a few days, the company should narrow or reconsider the claim.